I find that to vague to able to draw any conclusions. I'm sure you recall many people complaining if all sorts of things because they lived within a ten mile radius of a nuclear power plant. It not at all clear precisely what the experimental set up was. Presumably quite different from what Rossi is doing.

On 9/21/2016 6:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:11 PM, a.ashfield < <>> wrote:

    I don't consider a link to the thread" Can we talk about Homlid?"
    any sort of reference what so ever.
    Rossi has stated on his blog that not only is he well but,
    repeatedly, that the E-Cat does not produce significant
    radiation.  If it had  presumably he would be a sick man by now.

    On 9/21/2016 5:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
    See eros posts in

    For Rossi, see his blog.

    On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:31 AM, a.ashfield
    < <>> wrote:

        Axil wrote:  "Both both Rossi and eros has suffered serious
        health issues when in close contact with their reactors."
        References please

        On 9/20/2016 5:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
        Rossi now joins the chorus of LENR developers who recognise
        the dangers inherent in high power output LENR reactors.
        Rossi joins ME356 and eros in advising caution based on
        their observation of LENR performance characteristics. Both
        both Rossi and eros has suffered serious health issues when
        in close contact with their reactors.

        On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:08 PM, a.ashfield
        < <>> wrote:

            Axil,  I doubt the QuarkX is that dangerous.  It is not
            like it could cause a nuclear explosion.
            Rossi seems to think The QuarkX is the future and the
            real problem is him being tied up in a legal battle.
            In answer to a comment on anther thread, suggesting that
            because IH claimed they had tried and failed, consider
            that MIT and Caltech concluded that Fleischmann & Pons
            could not be replicated 0  and we now know it can be.
            I don't see IH giving up without getting their hands on
            the Quark technology.

            On 9/20/2016 4:40 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

                September 20, 2016 at 7:28 AM
                Dear Andrea Rossi:
                Update of the work on the QuarkX?

                Andrea Rossi
                September 20, 2016 at 8:29 AM
                Still in very good standing, but also still
                dangerous. Working mainly on safety issues now.
                Warm Regards,

                If seems that LENR reactors are not as inherently
                safe as we all once thought. But the safe deployment
                of LENR technology could still be accommodated into
                the current power infrastructure.

                The development of ocean deployment of huge wind
                turbines will serve LENR reactor deployment well. A
                safe method of LENR deployment will entail the use
                of those floating platforms located just off shore.

                The technical feasibility of deepwater floating LENR
                platforms will not be questioned, as the long-term
                survivability of floating structures has been
                successfully demonstrated by the marine and offshore
                oil industries over many decades. However, the
                economics that allowed the deployment of thousands
                of offshore oil rigs have yet to be demonstrated for
                floating LENR reactor platforms. For deepwater wind
                turbines, a floating structure will replace
                pile-driven monopoles or conventional concrete bases
                that are commonly used as foundations for shallow
                water and land-based reactors. The floating
                structure must provide enough buoyancy to support
                the weight of the reactor as a function of its size
                and power production rating and to restrain pitch,
                roll and heave motions within acceptable limits.

                Since muon shielding is so problematic, distance
                from any population is the one dependable risk
                mitigation method.

                The distance of LENR deployment offshore would be a
                function of the range of muon travel before decay
                and the inverse square law dilution of muon density
                together with safe muon exposure limits.

                The floating LENR reactor will be bigger than a sea
                buoy, but smaller than a floating wind turbine.
                Robotize remote controlled maintence could allow for
                human free maintenance of the LENR reactor such as
                refueling. The activated waste fuel could be dumped
                into the deep water or dissolved in acid.

Reply via email to